Rob Durk <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>Deconsecration is simply deliberately carried out desecration.
this doesn't sound quite right, to me.
certainly all desecrations might be seen as, de facto, deconsecrations
(necessitating the ritual re-consecration described in liturgical manuals);
but i would seriously doubt that a deliberate deconsecration would proceed
along the lines of a deliberate desecration
--let's see, the bishop and priests of the cathedral systematically and
liturgically go around the place trashing the relics in all the altars,
defecating in the corners of all the chapels, while singing the Te Deum
backwards...
something wrong with that picture.....
>Desecration takes place when a consecrated object is destroyed or materially
altered in some way.
my feeble understanding is that an object/building becomes consecrated, not by
being "materially" altered in some way, but, on the contrary, whatever
material alteration is made --a relic is placed in an altar, a building is
asperged (is that a word?) and painted with crosses, etc.--
is in fact rather incidental to what's *really* going on.
which is that material objects are being transformed *in their essence,*
Charged, as it were, through the Proper Application of Powerful Ju-Ju via the
Liturgy.
this is what's going on --what's *really* going on, outward and visible signs
aside-- whether the sacred objects/buildings concerned are
Sumerian, Egyptian, Islamic, Christian or Buddhist. "Greater Vehicles,
Lesser Vehicles --All Vehicles Will Be Towed At Owner's Expense," as friends
of mine in the latter sect are fond of saying.
deconsecration might --or might *not*-- involve such liturgically manifested
goings on. but there is no reason to believe --and every reason *not* to
believe-- that it would involve any deliberate
desecration of previously revered sacred objects or spaces.
although i pretty much agree that it is possible that
>The usual process [of deconsecration] with a church is not a ritual per se,
but consists of the removal of relics/altar stone (which effectively
desecrates
NO, it effectively deconsecrates!
>the altar) and of the consecration crosses on the walls of the church
(effectively deconsecrating the building).
>It is usual to remove the altar and font, less for the reasons above
than for the fact that they can be reused.
there certainly was a great deal of re-use. but i find it interesting to
note that, especially in the period which i know a bit about (11th-13th cc.)
the taste seems to have been quite weighted towards the creation of Spiffy,
New Stuff in the Latest Style of the Day ("Nothing's too good for Our Lady")
--albeit perhaps following the "look and feel" of the old, the familiar and
the revered (e.g., the iconographic form of a special cult statue might be
"copied" in a new edition).
but in that period, at least, we are primarily dealing with a culture which,
while it certainly had a reverance for the past (and how!), was also fairly
well bursting with creative energy (unlike our own creatively exhausted era).
all of medieval --especially "high medieval"-- art might be seen in the
context of this dynamic tension between absolute reverance for the Timeless
Forms ("Realism", properly understood!) and a constantly
evolving psychic (sorry, i don't know what other word to use)
relationship towards them.
be that as it may, i *believe* i've seen reference somewhere to the
proper way in which old statuary is to be disposed of --burried in consecrated
ground or something along those lines... disposal of the
old to make way for the new was a common enough occurance.
exceptions might be instances like Suger's re-use of onyx(?) vases --but note
that there he felt the need to *recast* them in "modern" settings.
>This is the current Catholic practice; I would see no real reason for it to
have changed substantially since the MA.
a rather dangerous assumption, imHo.
the more i look at it, the less i see connecting "current Catholic practice"
with the Shenanigans of the Middlevils. those folks lived in
a very different psychic space from "current Catholics," and we forget that
at our peril. i'm not even sure that the two are congruent, much less
identical.
just an opinion, of course.
best to all from here,
christopher
____________________________________________________________________
Get free email and a permanent address at http://www.netaddress.com/?N=1